tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX December 9, 2012 4:00pm-5:00pm PST
neutral. and, growing concern syria will use chemical weapons, against its own people. ♪ >> chris: with just 23 days to go, and more posturing than progress, will the white house and republicans cut a deal to avoid big spending cuts and tax increases? we'll talk with two senators on the front lines of the debate. democrat charles schumer, and republican, bob corker. then, the u.s. draws a red line. telling syrian president aassad not to use chemical weapons in the country's civil war. we'll discuss the intelligence and the possible fallout with israel's ambassador to the u.s., michael oren, a fox news sunday exclusive, plus the supreme court agrees to take up same sex marriage. we'll ask our sunday panel what the court is likely to decide, whether gays have a constitutional right to marriage. and, a final farewell to my
best friend, winston. all, right now, on fox news sunday. ♪ >> chris: and hello, again from fox news in washington. well, it is beginning to feel like ground hog day, in the talks to avoid the fiscal cliff. both sides dug in, no agreement in sight. and, we're now just 23 days from the brink. joining us to break down where things stand, are two leading senators. democrat charles schumer, of new york. and, republican bob corker, of tennessee. gentlemen, house speaker boehner said on friday that another week has been wasteded. senator corker, given that president obama won the election, and seems to have most of the political leverage, what is the realistic deal to be made in the next 23 days? >> first of all, i think something will happen. i hope it is large enough for people like me that want to see entitlement reform to vote for.
the president has leverage and the republicans have leverage with the debt ceiling and the c.r. which ends in march and hopefully cooler heads will prevail. there are different theories coming forth on how to deal with this and again, chris, it is a unique moment in history, where every developed country in the world, economists on both sides of the aisle, know the greatest threat to our country is fiscal solvency and we have a situation where the minority party is trying to leverage the president into doing something that is great for our nation and it is a very unique time and i hope the president soon will see the light. >> chris: senator schumer, three weeks left. what is the compromise and, this is the important part, that both sides can live with, on taxes, spending cuts, and entitlement reform? >> well, i think we will get a deal. i think everyone realizes how important it is. our economy is moving up some, not fast enough but, some, and to go over the cliff would be
terrible. i think we will get an agreement. and, the reason i think we'll get an agreement, what is standing in the way, is revenues, particularly making that top rate go up to 39-6 but i think we are seeing real progress in that regard in two days. first, a good number of republican conservatives, people like coulter and bill kristol said we have to do it and, tom coburn says, in terms of the deduction and, mitt romney and the republicans and head of fedex and at&t saying, let it happen. so i think that is likely to happen. the president won the election on that issue and i think you'll see our republican colleagues reluctantly say, okay. let's go up to 39.6. >> chris: senator, let me interrupt right there and bring in senator corker. senator schumer is exactly right. a growing number of republicans and conservative, not a majority
but a growing number are saying, look, we have to cave on tax -- raising tax rates, not just the idea of closing loopholes. would you accept returning to the clinton rate of 39.6%? or, would you accept something, perhaps, a mid point, 37% or starting with people who make $500,000, rather than 250? >> well, chris, there is a growing group of folks, that are looking at this and realizing that we don't have a lot of cards as it relates to the tax issue before year end. i mean, we have one house, that is it. the presidency and the senate, is in the democrats' hands, and a lot of people are putting forth a theory and i actually think it has merit where you go ahead and give the president the 2% increase, that he is talking about, rate increase on the top 2% and all of a sudden the shift goes back to entitlements, and all of a sudden once you give him the right on the top 2%, it is actually much lesser tax
increase than what he has been talking about, the focus then shifts to entitlements and maybe it puts us in a place where we actually can do something that really saves the nation, so, there is a growing body, i actually am beginning to believe that is the best route for us to take, to, again, shift the focus where it needs to be, which is on entitlements. still, chris, the top 1% in or country, take in 17% of the income and pay 37% of the taxes, that are paid. i do hope we'll take up tax reform in a way that creates growth in our nation at some point, but at this juncture we may be exactly where senator schumer says and i'm not sure that is not the healthiest place to go as republicans, to really get entitlement reform to save or nation. >> chris: all right, senator schumer, you just heard senator corker say, look, i would consider and maybe i'll vote for raising the rates, all the way up to the clip rate, 39.6%, for the top 2%.
but, we need spending cuts and we need entitlement reform. what are you guys willing to put on the table? >> well, bottom line is, if speaker boehner ends up where senator corker has just said he is, we will get a large agreement. but, speaker boehner has not said that. and so, we democrats realize that there have to be two sides to the bargain. but we're not going to go back to what we did in 2011 and put both revenues and cuts on the table. and ended up with just getting the cuts because, the other side wouldn't accept revenues, and so once speaker boehner calls for an increase in revenues, to 39.6 and the other things the president called for, we have done a trillion dollars in cuts already. but we realize there have to be other kinds of cuts. and, there will be serious negotiations about that. we'll have different views, my view and senator corker's view, as to where we ought to go on entitlements is different but
we'll have to find some spending cuts and we will. >> chris: well, i mean, in fairness, senator corker, senator coburn, a bunch of people, senator schumer, have said -- and i didn't it's not house speaker boehner but on the other hand you are not president obama and they have been willing to come out and say, we are willing to raise the tax rates all the way up to the clinton rate, 39.6%, can you give us some specifics of things you would consider cutting both in terms of social programs and entitlement reform. >> well think e bottom lin-- we bottom line is it would be negotiating against ourselves. >> chris: isn't that what they just did? >> no. the bottom line is democrats led by or president, all most uniformly say here is our 1.2 trillion of getting to the $4 trillion. it is revenues. it is up to the republican leadership, prodded, correctly and boldly, by senator corker and others, to say they'll go along with that and then we'll
start negotiating on the other side. it makes no sense for us to negotiate against ourselves. >> chris: you buy that, senator corker? >> no, look, chris, we have to have a $4.5 trillion solution here and, really, i know senator schumer, i have talked with him numbers of times personally. he knows the general things we need to do and, candidly, most republicans and democrats do. i do think it is time for the president, he knows that there is a growing body of folks, who are willing to look at the rate on the top 2%, but, that is only -- could be $400 billion, might be $800 billion, depending on how you deal with that and many of us, who are fiscal conservatives, are beginning to see that we can end up with a lisser revenue increase by agreeing to that. the shift in focus and entitlements is where we need to go and, again, it is a shame that we are not just sitting down and solving this. the republicans know they have the debt ceiling, that is coming up around the corner, and, the leverage is going to shift, as
soon as we get beyond this issue. the leverage is going to shift, to our side. where hopefully we'll do the same thing we did last time and that is if the president wants to raise the debt limit by $2 trillion we get $2 trillion in spending reduction and, hopefully, this time, it is mostly oriented towards entitlement and with no process. i don't want to kick the can down the road. i think senator schumer and i both know that what we need to do is solve the problem, now. >> chris: let's talk about -- wait a second. we're going to get into that in a second, senator schumer. senator corker, you -- part of the president's demand, as you know, is that he be given the right to raise the debt limit by himself, unless congress disaproves by a 2/3 vote in both houses. is that a deal-breaker for republicans? >> well, look, let me go back, chris. let's face it. he has the upper hand on taxes and you have to pass something to keep it from happening and we
only have one body. if we were to pass, for instance, raising the top 2 rates, and that's it, all of a sudden we do have the leverage of the debt ceiling and we haven't given that up so the only way the debt ceiling, i think, is given up is if the president comes to the table, talks with speaker boehner about real entitlement reform. without that, there is no way in my opinion the debt ceiling is going to be begin up. so then you go into january and february, with the negotiation about spending reductions which is where we want to go. so, look, i mean, he can decide. i agree with senator schumer, we're not going to go over the fiscal cliff, to use that terminology, something will happen before year end. hopefully, a comprehensive package that solves our nation's problems and then, later, next year we deal with tax reforms in a revenue-neutral way. but i do not want to see us -- go ahead, i'll stop. >> chris: let me bring in senator schumer. and, this goes beyond simply the
question of this deal. why should congress give up its constitutional authority over borrowing? you know, we looked at your record, when george w. bush was president, and you voted at least three times against increasing the debt limit. why would congress unilaterally give up that power? >> well the bottom line is, i think on debt ceilings, things have shifted. i don't agree with my good friend, bob corker on the issue. i think it shift the way it has on taxes and we just saw that. senator mcconnell put on the floor a resolution that said, it was his idea, not ours, that let the president raise the debt ceiling, after all it is money congress already spent, and, let congress, by 2/3, override it. he thought we democrats would run away from that, scared as could be. within a half-hour, we had 51 votes and called his bluff and he ended up filibustering his own proposal, normally, very politically short footed mitch
mcconnell stumbled on this because the ground changed here. i believe debt ceiling will be part of the agreement and i'll frankly our republican colleagues have learned that to say the government will not pay its debts and hold it up for something else is bad substance, and bad politics. i don't think they'll prevail on that. if they want to say, we won't raise the debt ceiling unless you cut medicare, make our day. >> chris: meaning, go ahead and default the country? >> no, make or day, meaning, that position is untenable politically and it will not last. you will not be able to hold it. >> chris: a little time left and i want to go to a couple of other subjects. senator schumer on the first day of the next congress in january, will democrats change the rules on filibusters by a simple majority, rather than the 2/3 majority you generally need, to change rules in the senate? >> okay. everyone knows the senate is broken and needs fixing.
i think bob corker would say that, we have had discussions. we're friends. most democrats -- almost all democrats and all republicans believe that and i think it is also true that our preference would be to do this by 2/3 in a bipartisan way. there are all kinds of discussions going on with all kinds of groups, to try and come up with some agreement. the basic problem is, republicans say we don't allow the amendments and we say they don't let our bills go on the floor. you can sort of deal with both issues, sort of even-handedly. if we can't come to an agreement, whether we go to the so-called constitutional option, our caucus will have to discuss that in the coming weeks, but our hope would be, to be able to come up with a compromise and there are interesting and productive discussions going on, right now. >> chris: let me ask you about the filibustering and you are right. there are arguments on both sides, senator schumer but when democrats were in the minority a my years ago and you were filibustering george w. bush's judicial nominations, you you
had a different view about the filibuster. let's watch. >> the wisdom of our republic has shown when the senate does slow things down, when the senate does invoke checks and balances, the republic is better off. >> chris: senator, what is the difference -- >> nothing, that is exactly right. and the filibuster, i am not for going to a house of representatives where 51 votes decides everything. but the filibuster has been overused. it's not just used on major issues like very significant judges, supreme court leaders, the courts of appeal, health care, obviously, that shouldn't have passed by 51 votes. it needed 60. but it is used on such trivial things and not by the whole majority... >> chris: wait, we'll run out of time. didn't health care pass on reconciliation by 51 votes? >> health care got 60 votes. >> chris: i thought there was a -- when it finally came back it went on -- >> no, but not -- not until
after it passed by 60 votes. >> chris: but on the changes it passed at 51? >> no. no. you have to do -- >> a technical point but you you are saying that you think there has to be reform? >> correct. >> if i could, really -- >> one last question for you, senator. >> okay. okay. number one, we're going to solve this. there is not going -- we will get this fiscal reform done, this year, and that is my prediction, because i think the president -- i think we are going to solve this. i think the two parties are going to solve this. secondly, i predict we'll have a meeting of both republicans and democrats, together, chuck schumer has been constructive on the issue and i think we'll sit down in the old senate chamber soon and resolve it in a way the democrats are not breaking the rules but change the reviews and do it the way the senate always functioned and we'll start this next year with a different spirit within congress. >> chris: let me ask you one --
senator in the time we have left and over time, one last question. that may test that: the new petspirit. you'll be the new ranking republican on the senate foreign relation committee in the new congress, will president obama make a mistake to -- condoleezza -- susan rice for secretary of state. >> ambassador rice is viewed as a political operative and i don't think he'll nominate her. i really don't. that time has come and gone. as i said, i'll give any nominee a fair hearing and i will in this case but i think the president realizes on both sides of the aisle there are concerns about the fact that she is such a political operative and not viewed, chris as a principal. >> chris: let me quickly and i'll ask you, senator. you don't think she'd pass the senate? >> well, i don't know what will happen. obviously, there are many people
like me that always give nominees a fair hearing. i don't think she is going to be nominated for a lot of reasons. >> chris: and senator schumer, briefly? >> yes. the solution here, a lot of republicans don't want to vote for susan rice. if she is nominated by the president, and i think he is very capable, they shouldn't filibuster, they don't have to vote for her but don't require 60 votes to get her on. that has traditionally been done with presidential cabinet nominees when a president is elect order reelected. that would be a solution. >> chris: we'll have to leave it there, senators, thank you both. we'll be watching for any sign of progress on the fiscal cliff or continued stalemate. thanks again, gentlemen. up next the u.s. draws a red line for syria's president bashar al-assad. we'll ask israeli ambassador michael oren about the threat of chemical weapons in syria. ♪ energy is being produced to power our lives. while energy development comes with some risk,
north america's natural gas producers are committed to safely and responsibly providing generations of cleaner-burning energy for our country, drilling thousands of feet below fresh water sources within self-contained well systems. and, using state-of-the-art monitoring technologies, rigorous practices help ensure our operations are safe and clean for our communities and the environment. we're america's natural gas. music is a universal language. but when i was in an accident... i was worried the health care system spoke a language all its own with unitedhealthcare, i got help that fit my life. information on my phone. connection to doctors who get where i'm from. and tools to estimate what my care may cost. so i never missed a beat. we're more than 78,000 people looking out for more than 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare.
[ male announcer ] how could a luminous protein in jellyfish, impact life expectancy in the u.s., real estate in hong kong, and the optics industry in germany? at t. rowe price, we understand the connections of a complex, global economy. it's just one reason over 75% of our mutual funds beat their 10-year lipper average. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. request a prospectus or summary prospectus with investment information, risks, fees and expenses to read and consider carefully before investing.
>> chris: the bloody civil war in syria took an even more ominous turn, this week. with the report from the assad regime, is prepared and might use chemical weapons against rebel forces. joining us now is michael oren. israel's ambassador to the u.s. ambassador, welcome back to fox news sunday. >> great to be here. >> chris: there is a report in "the sunday times of london", israel has spotters on the ground inside syria. what is your latest intelligence about assad preparing, possibly
getting ready to use chemical weapons? is she still mixing the sarin gas? or have the warnings from secretary of state clinton and the president scared him off. >> we have been watching it many months now and it's not new to us. syria has a varied, deep chemical weapons program. it is geographically dispersed as well and were those weapons to pass into the wrong hands, that would be a game changer for us. >> chris: at this point, any signs as to whether he is continuing to mix the sarin gas? or whether he pulled back from that? >> i cannot confirm the reports but i can say, again we are watching it and i will tell you we have a very clear red line, about those chemical weapons, passing into the wrong hands. can you imagine, if hezbollah, 70,000 rockets, got its hands on chemical weapons, that could kill thousands of people. >> chris: let's talk about that. the u.s. drew a red line, this week and their red line is different than israel's red line is, if assad uses them against
his own people, israel's line, as you say, is if he were to lose control or give the weapons to extremists, which raises the question, how big a presence do jihadists and especially those allies of al qaeda play in the rebels who are opposing and fighting assad and syria? >> we support the president's red line as well, and president netanyahu came out and supported his red line regarding the use of chemical weapons in syria and the jihadi presence is big and getting bigger and the longer the conflict goes on the bigger it will get. >> chris: do you worry about the possibility, yeah, you lose assad, who is no friend of israel but then you get a situation where you have al qaeda factions running part of syria? >> we have long advocated for bashar al-assad's departure. long before, actually the outbreak of hostilities. we came to the administration, years ago and said, bashar al-assad is too reckless, his father was, remember, he was
reckless, and somehow predictable. reckless and somehow responsible and his son is reckless and irresponsible. and ruthless. and he has provided 70,000 rocks, lebanon, and rock and terrorists everywhere and tried to create a nuclear facility, secretly and his father would have never done that. but he had to go. he was a loose canon throughout the region and a danger to the entire region. if he goes now we'd view that as a positive development. he's an ally of iran, ally of hezbollah. we understand that if jihadists were to come in it wouldn't be good. but, it perhaps wouldn't be as bad as the current situation. >> chris: all right, let's turn to egypt, where egyptian president morsi this weekend rescinded, it appears, most of the decree that gave him sweeping powers but is moving ahead with a refer recommend, next weekend, on a new constitution. does israel care whether egypt
becomes an islamic state? >> well, egypt's civility and democracy, israel has an interest in stable, peaceful and democratic egypt and we will not get involved in the internal politics of egypt like we don't expect egyptians to get into our internal politics. egypt needs peace and it's not just an israeli interest, it is an egyptian and regional interest and, is a global interest, to egyptian-israeli peace and we hope egypt overcomes its internal difficulties as quickly and peacefully as possible. >> chris: does your government, given, particularly his role in helping to broker the cease-fire with gaza, with hamas, in gaza, do you trust morsi to keep the peace with israel. >> he has said repeatedly to americans and others who visit egypt he has every intention of upholding the peace and played a constructive role in helping achieve a cease-fire surrounding
the recent fighting in gaza and we hope egypt will continue to play that kind of constructive role in the future. >> chris: immediately after the palestinians, a week or so ago, were voted nonmember observer status as a state, nonmember observer state saturdtatus in t u.n., netanyahu said, you'll go ahead for plans, just plans at this point, for a settlement on the west bank called e-1. we'll put up a map and show it. the map of the project which the obama administration says would drive a wedge into the heart of the palestinian west bank, possibly cut off east jerusalem from the rest of the west bank and my question is, will israel develop that little chunk, e-1, or are you using that as a bargaining chip, to say to the palestinians, look, you made trouble for us in the u.n. and international bodies, and, this is what we may do. if you don't, maybe we won't.
>> the map is a little misleading. the yellow chunk there is actually a suburb, and, 40,000 israelis live there. it is about -- less than two miles stretch of barren desert road from the suburb to jerusalem. e-1 is the road. and we have to worry about a situation in the future where the suburb could be cut off from jerusalem. you see on the map it doesn't cut off the west bank, you can get from ramala in the north, bethlehem in the south by going around e-1 and if there is true peace, the problem is solved by a clover leaf or tunnel going beneath the road that links the suburb with jerusalem. but, you said it best, it was the way the israeli government set down a marker. the palestinians violate their agreements with us. and, with the united states. by going unilaterally to the u.n. to declare a state. all of our agreements say, there is no alternative to direct talks between us and the palestinians. we are still ready to have the
talks, ready to have them today if they join us at the table. if not, we are going to have to take measures that will enable us to defend ourselves and our citizens in the future. >> chris: well, i want to button up the issue with e-1. you know, you put your spin on it and the u.s. talked about it driving a wedge into the west bank and making it more difficult to have a viable contiguous state. the question is, is israel necessarily going to build on e-1? or are you saying it depends? >> it is a preliminary stage. that was announced, last week. it could take years to fulfill that. let's see if the palestinians come back to the negotiating table. i want to reiterate, we are ready to negotiate today. here in washington, ramallah, jerusalem to work out the core issues between us and one issue is jerusalem, and the question of settlements, which are part of the territorial issue, for us and we are willing to talk about
all of it. >> chris: a different negotiation about the palestinians, not over the final solution, but, the cease-fire in gaza. a couple weeks ago, israel agreed to it. and, through egypt, agreed to talks to try to settle the issues, they want to loosen the blockade and you want to stop weapons being smuggled into gaza, missiles that end up being fired on israel. two questions: where do the talks stand? what do you make of the remarks of hamas's political leader, who this weekend said, he will never recognize israel's right to exist. >> about the talks, they are going on now. literally as we are speaking and we're working out various issues and, the most important, stopping the flow of iranian missiles and other weapons into gaza. >> chris: has there been progress. >> we are discussing it openly with egyptians and it is key. that is the bottle neck, the weapons from the libyan or
sudanese direction pass at some point through egyptian territory into gaza and if we can stop that we can do a tremendous amount toward reinforcing the cease-fire. and the head of hamas was in gaza this weekend and talked about destroying the jewish state. no chance for negotiation, we'll liberate tel aviv and haifa and did it from the huge papier mache model of a rocket and i think there is no better indicator of what we are dealing with, with hamas than the speech by him. >> chris: ambassador oren, thanks tfor coming in, we'll continue to monitor the developments in the region. up next, we'll ask our sunday group, if a new constitutional right for same sex marriage is in the making. to cover cleanup costs. today, the beaches and gulf are open, and many areas are reporting their best tourism seasons in years. and bp's also committed to america.
>> this is what the judicial system is all about. it is to take care of the minority when they are being oppressed. >> the vast majority of states, four out of five states, the people have chosen to either vote themselves, or their elected representatives, to stick with traditional marriage. >> chris: two views on the supreme court's decision to wade into the debate over same sex marriage, it is time or our sunday group, bill kristol of the weekly standard, kristen powers, kimberley strassel of the "wall street journal" and, juan williams, political analyst. what is the significance of the
supreme court deciding to take on the issue. >> they pretty much had to because there were serious issues presented at the appellate level and that is what the supreme court is for, to resolve a situation where congress passed legislation and a couple of circuits, found it unconstitutional. and, at the state level, in california and i think the court will be modest and cautious. i think the court has learned, especially the justice john roberts court, is weary of doing what the court dade in roe vs. wade in 1973 and i don't think they will throw out arrangements in 30 states and 40 states, and they will resolve, i suspect the defense of marriage act case narrowly, only one section is actually an issue, section 3, in california they'll make a decision that might uphold the appellate court and keep it limited to california and i believe the court doesn't want to be, you know, overturning arrangements, throughout the country, something so delicate as this. they learned the lesson that that is not the right role for the supreme court. >> chris: let's talk about that. a lot of people make the comparison, to 1973.
roe vs. wade. because, what is so interesting is that, public attitudes on same sex marriage changed dramatically. let's put up the map. 37 states, either by law or in their excuses, now ban same sex marriages, but, they are legal in 9 states, as well as the nation's capitol, washington, d.c. and a new poll, 40% approve same sex marriage and 30% support legal unions and 24% say same sex couples should not be allowed to enter into any such union and now we have president, kirsten, who came out in favor of same sex marriage and wants to leave it as a state issue, not a national law and some people, as the judges are comparing it to the '70s when opinion was evolve on abortion, and, the states seemed to be working it out and the court came down with a big ruling and, 40 years later we are still having the holy war on the issue. how do you see the court
reacting do you see them, some people would say, creating a constitutional right? or do you think they are going to be narrow and modest in their decision. >> it would be a surprise if they did such a broad ruling and, just ginsburg talked about this a lot. roe vs. wade, how they should have left it to the states and let it play out and i suspect, the map you put up, tells the whole story, you look at that many states who banned it versus how many approved it, it gives you a good sense where the country is on the issue. yes, it is moving you in a direction and i expect at some point it will be -- the court will rule on it and rule that it is a constitutional right, which is my personal view. but, i think right now, i expect them to do something more narrow like the appeals court did, and -- in california, the lower court found that it was a constitutional right and the appeals court said, no, you can to the take rights away that have been given and i expect a narrow ruling. >> chris: basically you are saying if they sided with what
the circuit court did in california they would say, that, okay. in california -- >> exactly. >> chris: it is legal but not in any other state. it doesn't apply to any other state. >> right. they are not ruling the way the lower court did. because if they do, that is broad, saying this is a video relation of the equal protection clause. i believe that that is true, i just don't think that the court will step out at this point on that issue. >> chris: what is the possibility, kim, that the court does exactly the opposite and says, look, congress has a law, that says the federal government can keep benefits, in a state, where the -- can keep partners, in this particular case, getting an inheritance, or for instance say, look, you had prop 8 in california and people voted, what do you think the chance of it going exactly the other way and being pretty broad ruling against it. >> they could and could do that and have a clear ruling for it. the more likely thing, given the complex number of legal issues here is there may be a muddled decision and those who are
hoping there may be some clear-cut finality at the end of this, may be disappointed. to go -- what you said about 1973, roe vs. wade, we have a real world example of how it can work in a good way and not on gay marriage. look up 2003, the massachusetts supreme court went out and said, this is a constitutional right. in the state of massachusetts, the next year 11 states came out and had refer recommenendumrefe, because voters don't like these things imposed on them from the top and it works better when they get a chance to take part in the democratic process and it gains legitimacy of the result and you have seen the migration, after 32 defeats at the ballot box, you had three states approve it because people who had a chance to make these decisions on their own, and vote. >> chris: juan? >> well, first of all, let me say i think this is a significant step by the court to agree to take the case and is something the whole country is
focused on and public opinion shifted and the court has an affirmative action case and voting rights case and, it is seen as a significant turn for the supreme court on issues of equality. when it comes to this issue, no, it comes down to, you said abortion, and i think a lot of people are thinking about 1967, loving versus virginia, and the court said, it is legal for people, different races to marry in the country. is it analogous to that, a gay couple has the same rights as a heterosexual couple? these are critical issues and a narrow ruling i think will be seen as dodging the issue. kicking the can down the road and is it you your constitutional right to marry the person of your choice in this country? i think this is an issue that is the way that the proponents of gay rights are putting it before the court is, let's look at the states and allow the states to make the decision. and, if that is the case, i think they are backing away from the larger issue. and the larger issue has to be,
the court would say, it is constitutional or not. >> chris: what about the argument that what happened in abortion, and obviously, if you are a pro-choice person you would think that is great but because the court has come in and set the rule from on high you have the battle for 40 years. >> i understand but the thing is you can't say to a human being, you know, in certain states you have rights, and other states you don't. to me, that -- this is a constitutional issue, and i think that is what the supreme court is for. if not to say, you know, we'll fight the last war again, on abortion and shouldn't have ruled so broadly. abortion is a matter of, i can see a state's issue. a constitutional right? i don't see it. >> i would say, i think that actually, the best analogy you gave, more than abortion, because i think once you started seeing racial attitudes change it really did the snow ball and i think that is what will happen with gay marriage but when the case was decided, there were
only 16 states, that banned interracial marriage, versus 40 states and so i think, when you look -- the court looks at that and trying to get a sense of where the country is and are concerned about this, they might see it differently. >> chris: all right, we have to take a break, up next, will the stalemate over the fiscal cliff hobble an already weak recovery? ♪ let's talk about low-cost investing. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 at schwab, we're committed to offering you tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 low-cost investment options-- tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 like our exchange traded funds, or etfs tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 which now have the lowest tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 operating expenses tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 in their respective tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 lipper categories. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 lower than spdr tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and even lower than vanguard. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 that means with schwab, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 your portfolio has tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 a better chance to grow. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and you can trade all our etfs online, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 commission-free, from your schwab account. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 so let's talk about saving money, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 with schwab etfs. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 schwab etfs now have the lowest operating expenses tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 in their respective lipper categories.
tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 call 1-800-4schwab tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 or visit schwab.com tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 to open an account today. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 funding is easy tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 with schwab mobile deposit. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 investors should consider tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 carefully information tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 contained in the prospectus, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 including investment objectives, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 risks, charges, and expenses. you can obtain tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 a prospectus by visiting tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 www.schwab.com/schwabetfs. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 please read the prospectus tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 carefully before investing. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 you won't take our future. aids affects us all. even babies. chevron is working to stop mother-to-child transmission. our employees and their families are part of the fight. and we're winning. at chevron nigeria, we haven't had a reported case in 12 years. aids is strong. aids is strong. but we are stronger. and aids... ♪ aids is going to lose. aids is going to lose. ♪ >> chris: check out fox news
>> citizens are making decisions about investment an hiring and if they don't have confidence we can get this thing done they'll start pulling back, and we could have a rocky time in our economy, over the next several months. >> chris: president obama, drawing a link between the fiscal cliff talks and a still slow economic recovery, and we're back now with the panel. well, we got the new jobs numbers friday. let's put them on the screen. unemployment dropped from 7.9 to
7.7%, the economy created 146,000 new jobs. kim, yes, continuing a recovery but not a roaring recovery. does it help one side more than the other in the negotiations over the fiscal cliff. >> they will both have talking points. the president will come out and say, look we're recovering and making our progress and therefore the economy is okay to have these tax hikes levied on it and republicans will say it is too weak to play guinea pig with the economy and you shouldn't be making this experimentation, the job numbers are not strong and politics aside, presidents with a second term their most lasting legacy is their stewardship of the economy and it is astonishing, given how weak the economy is, you can got out and impose new taxes, whatever will come, in he's wrong and it has an effect it will be hard for us to dig out of that in the end. >> chris: juan, 23 days, and
counting, now, until we go over the cliff. do you see -- and you heard senators corker and schumer, any sign aw sign we are getting closer to a deal. and it does seem like republicans are caving on the top tax rates. >> you were listening carefully. that is exactly right. that is the sign. i mean, republicans don't have leverage in this deal, look at the polls, it is not one or two polls, it is overwhelming, the american people would blame the g.o.p. and, the second thing to say is, that you look at people like corker and you can go beyond him, to tom coburn and saxby chambliss and even my colleague, bill kristol, who said, you know -- senator kristol here! republicans don't need the fight. it's not a winning fight politically and the third thing, something i think a lot of people don't say is, it could be damaging to president obama. he wants to begin his second term, more forward looking and not lost in a sea of economic
fear in the country, and people would blame him for, you know, taking away unemployment benefits, and letting taxes go up on everybody. >> chris: payroll taxes. >> right, both sides here have strong incentive to make a deal. not to mention they want to get out of town for christmas. >> chris: not to mention! bill, given all of that... you were one of the early people who said, republicans, i guess, thought we'd remind those who may have missed it... republicans don't want to be fighting over tax increases or millionaires. what is the smart play for republicans at this point and how do they get this -- because, the bit about taxes, how do they get the debate back to their issues, spending and entitlements. >> they'll do it next year, they'll pass in the house of representatives an extension of all the bush tax cuts. >> chris: before the end of the year. >> yes.
and they'll pass, perhaps, the second piece of legislation, as a fall back if the senate doesn't accept the better piece of legislation and that will be -- make for accommodations to president obama, allow a tax hike up to 37%, only for millionaires, and obama has a pretty extreme position, a tax hike of 4% on every family making over $250,000, there are a lot of upper middle class families who don't think they are wealthy, paying college tuition and making more than $250,000 and less than $750,000 or a main amillion and there is a tax increase on obamacare, and a 3% surcharge on investment money and republicans can say, best case, no tax increase, and we'll give you a responsible, modest increase, so you can satisfy yourself, president obama, increasing taxes a little bit on millionaires, and not families making $250,000 a year and he'd have to accept and that
republicans will save a lot of families from a worse tax increase and you can have a spending and entitlement fight where republicans have plenty of leverage and will be a debt ceiling issue and continuing resolution for funding the government and it is not -- >> kirsten, you seem singularly unimpressed. >> as she so often is, i have to say. >> the deal that seems to be on the table, floated right now is the 37% rate. >> chris: let's quickly -- the top tax rate is now 35%. if the bush tax cuts lapse the top rate is 39.6%, the rate under bill clinton and some people say, got to middle, 37%. >> yes, that is the deal obama has said he'll come down to 37%. and republicans have said, let's raise medicare and, i think it is out there, floating to see how to the base will react and the left is completely freaking out over the raising of the medicare eligibility and i assume the right is freaking out
about giving on the tax rates. they have to decide. the administration is clear tax rates have to go up. obama has given in on it before and says there is a lot of pressure on him and the house democrats and, i think if they can come to some sort of agreement on the rate and if republicans are willing to push the other steps to next year, that is a deal. >> i think what argues against a big deal, includes any sort of cuts, for instance, up front on the entitlement side is, republicans -- tax rates are going up either way, this is the thinking among republicans before because you are going over the cliff or because the president has the whip hand and will force you into a deal and they don't want to take responsibility for the economic fallout that comes, and, the big deals includes spending cuts and they are signing up and their fingerprints are all over it and it is more likely what bill said. something extends the tax rate and we'll see you next year, at the debt ceiling debate and we'll talk about the middle
class hostage, you have been holding over our deheads will b dead and... >> chris: juan, let's talk about that, the president, we heard late last week has a new demand and wants to get unilateral authority to raise the debt limit, all by himself, unless 2/3 of congress, 2/3 in each house, disaproves of that. what do you think of the chances that republicans will give them that, and, listen to what the president said, this week about the debt limit. here it is. >> president barack obama: i will not play that game, because we have to break that habit, before it starts. >> chris: president seemed to be suggesting, you want to bargain over the debt limit? i'm not going to do it. >> his argument, white house argument i hear is, look, the last time this happened, it was so much an armageddon and the first time it happened in american history. previously, republican and democratic presidents were able to get a hike in the debt
ceiling, without this kind of pressure coming from the congress in terms of spending and taxes and the like and they don't like it. they don't want it and it is the one point of leverage to reaffirm kimberly here, republicans have over the president, right now. >> chris: and they had one in march. we had run out of money for the government -- >> well, that is more of a negotiation but this is a specific point of leverage. i don't see republicans giving in on it. i see the president saying this is unreasonable and, it is becoming another political fight. >> chris: let me ask one question about what we'll henceforth call the kristol scenario and they end up passing the halfway cave, limited cave on tax rates. that doesn't avoid the fiscal cliff, does it? >> it avoids the tax side of the fiscal cliff. and most of the cuts in spending, except for defense and the president sees no interest in having a strong defense and we'll litigate that next year and there are opportunities to debate the spending, defense and entitlement issues next year,
get the tax issue off the table, the weakest one for the republicans and let the president own it -- >> end with a wimper, not a bang. >> yes, could be. >> chris: there you go, see you next week, don't forget, check out panel plus where our group picks up right with the discussion on our web site, foxnewssunday.com and we'll post the video before noon eastern time and follow us on twitter. @foxnewssunday. this program note: tune into fox news channel tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern for "fly me to the moon" anchored by neil cavuto it marks the 40th anniversary of the last time man walked on the lunar surface. up next on "final thoughts." about my best friend. ♪ i'm a conservative investor. i invest in what i know.
i turned 65 last week. i'm getting married. planning a life. there are risks, sure. but, there's no reward without it. i want to be prepared for the long haul. i see a world bursting with opportunities. india, china, brazil, ishares, small-caps, large-caps, ishares. industrials. low cost. every dollar counts. ishares. income. dividends. bonds. i like bonds. ishares. commodities. diversification. choices. my own ideas. ishares. i want to use the same stuff the big guys use. ishares. 9 out of 10 large, professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. introducing the ishares core, etfs for the heart of your portfolio. tax efficient and low cost building blocks to help you keep more of what you earn. call your advisor. visit ishares.com. ishares. yeah, ishares. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing.
>> chris: we've been getting together on sunday mornings for 9 years now and i hope you don't mind my sharing personal moments with you from my wife's sunday soup to the passing of my dad. i have something new to tell you about, something sad. ♪ >> chris: last week, we had to put our beloved yellow labrador, winston, to sleep. >> ♪ ♪ hold on, to me, as you go... >> chris: and it is nothing less than a death in the family. >> hi! >> chris: winston joined us ten years ago, and he was wonderful. a furry little bundle of life and joy.
>> remarkable. >> winston! >> chris: he took his place in family photos. as our family grew, winston was still front and center. he loved holidays. at christmas, my wife, lorraine, put up a stocking for him, which he would stare at. and we sang happy birthday, he always thought it was for him. >> william and dad... >> chris: he loved to play in the snow. he loved to get up on a couch and look out the window at the traffic. winston even appeared in two of our power players. when we profiled washington's dog whisperer i look him in for much-needed training. >> that's where we do it! >> chris: he doesn't do any of this for me! >> chris: and when lorraine wret a book about our sunday soup tradition he demonstrated the central role he played. >> his nose goes in the air and he can't wait for his taste of soup. after we finished our. >> winston, is it your soup sunday?
yea, come on! there you go! ♪ >> chris: more than any of that was his constant companionship and he was good company. >> ♪ ♪ as we roll down this unfamiliar road...♪ >> chris: he loved to make us chase him around the house until he rolled on his back for belly rubs and hugs. when my son went fishing, winston went along. and, as our children started having children, he welcomed the babies into our house, as uncle winston. >> ♪ ♪ gonna make this place your home...♪ >> chris: he has only been gone a week but life is very different. he'll always have lo -- we'll a of memories, so many memories. but why is our home so quiet and empty without him? >> chris: since he died i heard from so many of you who loved and lost pets. thank you for your kind